BUILDING-IN RESILIENCE: REVISITING FLOOD MITIGATION FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS INDUSTRY VIEWFINDER 29
water management features such as wetlands and swales, in contrast to engineered systems, bearing in mind the challenges for doing so. This was a broadly positive result for proponents of natural features, with their abilities to add diversity and resident amenity, with 69% saying they have increased their use in projects.
PLANNING & DESIGN
Integrating stormwater management measures effectively often means ensuring they are included at the outset of projects’ designs. Respondents were asked whether systems were considered from the earliest design stages of developments, and reassuringly, 63% said they were. However, when asked what specifi c stage of the development process they were incorporating SuDS solutions, most said that this was done at the ‘planning submission’ stage (56%), and only 6% were including the measures at detailed design. A signifi cant minority (36%) were including SuDS design only at construction stage. Planning policy remains one of the strongest infl uences on drainage design and implementation. The questionnaire therefore investigated whether local planning requirements are actively encouraging, or reuiring the inclusion of, fl ood mitigation measures in housing developments.
Do you stay up to date on recent advances in SuDS-related products (e.g. improved permeable paving, modular water storage, green & blue roofs)? Yes No
they utilise Sustainable Drainage Systems in their projects, ranging from ‘always’ to “never.’ This provided a benchmark for understanding how embedded SuDS have become within current development practice. Participants were also asked which fl ood mitigation approaches they have used in completed developments. The list includes permeable paving, grass paving, swales, rainwater harvesting systems, green roofi ng, infi ltration trenches, storage tanks, permeable conveyance systems, and other engineered or natural drainage features. These responses will help identify the prevalence of specifi c technologies and systems across the industry. We found that the most popular solution for our cohort was permeable paving (67% saying they have used it in SuDS schemes), with the more general option of ‘stormwater management’ picked by 66%, with the fact permeable paving was placed higher than this umbrella term showing it’s likely the established, ‘no-brainer’ choice. However, below-ground attenuation tanks were also popular with 57% picking this option.
ur survey showed that artifi cial or engineered u were the most used option, as the most popular natural SuDS technique swales was only in fi fth place overall, with . hile many respondents will opt for a hybrid approach combining natural and engineered u, our fi ndings show that the assumption that many sites are constrained in terms of area, leading to a preference for more compact engineered solutions for controlling water, may be bearing out for our cohort. The survey also examined whether developers and construction professionals have increased their use of natural
DEVELOPMENT AMENITY & STAKEHOLDERS he survey also explores the commercial dimension of fl ood mitigation, in terms of the intrinsic value that SuDS schemes can add for buyers. Participants were asked whether high- quality SuDS installations, including natural features, increase the appeal of developments, and whether they are actively promoted as selling points to prospective buyers. The research further investigated whether homebuyers are beginning to ask specifi cally about sustainable drainage systems, green roofs, or other resilience measures during the purchasing process. Did our cohort think that SuDS strategies added value and amenity to developments, not only for customers, but for them as developers e didnt get a defi nitive answer, although did agree that ‘high quality SuDS features increase the appeal of developments.’ Somewhat cryptically, a substantial segment of said that whether that social value could be attributed ‘depends on the market.’
This was a likely outcome from the following question response, which saw only ‘occasional’ promotion of the features as a customer selling point as the preferred approach for . This could be something of a ‘chicken and egg’ argument, in that more promotion and information could possibly lead to more value being placed on the installations, including for the resilience they bring to schemes against future climate risks. he most salutary fi nding in the whole study, perhaps, when it comes to consumer perceptions, is that precisely none of our respondents said their buyers had specifi cally asked about sustainable drainage features on projects. We can reasonably assume that they are unlikely to be in many customers’ mindset at present when looking at purchase decisions, based on the survey fi ndings.
EDUCATION The survey also focused on how developers inform themselves
PRODUCED IN ASSOCIATION WITH
WWW.HBDONLINE.CO.UK
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
